TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 administered COVID-19 vaccinations but is unsure of the number. Speaker 0 suggests COVID is a hoax for depopulation, causing deaths and disabilities worldwide. Speaker 1 took responsibility to protect their company. Speaker 0 finds the revelations interesting.

Speaker 0 states that one of their three children experienced health issues, including heart inflammation, after receiving the vaccine and subsequently lost their job for refusing further vaccination. This adverse reaction is officially registered. The speaker recounts a doctor advising their son against further vaccination outside a hospital setting, but later denying having said so. Speaker 1 says there is a good system for reporting side effects in New Zealand and finds no clear evidence of suppression of medical side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Speaker 0 questions why the vaccine is still in use given the side effects. Speaker 1 responds that society decided to tolerate a certain number of adverse effects for the greater good, characterizing the speaker's family member's reaction as "taking one for the team."

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna uses its profits to help people injured by their vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that indemnities are a government policy matter and cannot comment. Speaker 0 clarifies if Moderna is unwilling to take responsibility for the safety of their vaccine. Speaker 1 emphasizes their commitment to vaccine safety but reiterates that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 questions the moral obligation of Moderna to assist vaccine victims, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero and thanking them.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

The discussion revolves around the lack of complete safety study information in the patient package insert for the Moderna vaccine. The speaker acknowledges the missing data but assures safety based on personal experience. When asked about the specific studies supporting the vaccine's safety and effectiveness, the speaker admits to not having an answer. The conversation ends with the speaker feeling inadequate for not being able to provide more information.

A person asks a pharmacy employee for the Moderna vaccine safety studies and placebo safety studies. The employee provides the manufacturer's package insert, stating the patient version is truncated, but the full information is inside. The person questions how informed consent is possible if all safety studies aren't listed. The employee agrees, stating they should not be giving the vaccines at all, but are told to. The employee claims everything they have seen, including patients they have given it to, indicates it is safe. When asked about the studies supporting the claim of safety and effectiveness, the employee says they cannot answer.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention others with amputations and heart conditions, and question why support is lacking. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and highlight over 30,000 adverse reactions in Scotland. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka do the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by stating that decisions during the pandemic were based on medical advice from experts, guiding vaccine rollout and eligibility.

Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. Minister Gallagher explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions the government's motives for issuing new indemnities and accuses them of using taxpayer money for vaccine harm. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination for public health. Senator Roberts continues to criticize the government's use of indemnities and accuses them of promoting experimental mRNA products.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they personally administered any COVID-19 vaccinations and informs them they may be personally liable and prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code. Speaker 0 claims COVID was a hoax and the shots are for depopulation, having killed or permanently disabled millions. Speaker 1 states the company is liable, not them, because they made sure beforehand that the company would take responsibility and support them administering the shots.

COVID vaccines are declared safe by Speaker 0. Speaker 1 expresses pain, trauma, and regret due to lack of help for vaccine injuries. They mention people with amputations and heart conditions, and question why they had to set up a support group in Scotland. They criticize the vaccine damage payment scheme and state that over 30,000 people in Scotland have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. Speaker 1 demands that Rashid Shunaka start doing the right thing. Speaker 0 responds by saying that decisions regarding the vaccine were made based on medical advice from experts.

Speaker 0: We need to investigate irregularities in their menstrual cycle, that’s number one, because that’s a little concerning and the reaction shouldn’t be interfering with that. Speaker 1: You’re a urologist, you must understand what’s going on with it. Speaker 0: It’s weird. I hope we don’t find out that there’s somehow this mRNA losing the body, because it has to be impacting something hormonal. It can impact menstrual cycles. The entire next generation is, like, super fucked up. Speaker 1: So tell me more, what’s developing with the mutation process? Speaker 0: They’re still conducting experiments, they’re optimizing it slowly, they’re very cautious and don’t want to accelerate too much. They’re doing it as exploratory work so you don’t advertise future mutations. Speaker 1: How would the research study be delayed for COVID stuff? Speaker 0: Now we’re focusing on mRNA beyond COVID. Our forward-looking studies must stay on track. Speaker 1: What is RNA going to be used for in the future? Speaker 0: Lots of stuff. Not just for viruses—we’re applying it to oncology, gene editing, and more. The portfolio has moved beyond COVID. There’s a dedicated COVID environment team; the company is asking where they’ll use this technology in the future for investors. Speaker 1: Is Pfizer going to be held liable for vaccine injuries? Speaker 0: I don’t think so. Usually drugs have known side effects. There have been reports like Clozapine being illegal, and Biox with heart issues—though that wasn’t for us, it was another company. They told me to monitor over time. So far, nothing major; we’ll see if anything arises. Speaker 1: Hope nobody grows three legs or the entire next generation is fucked up. Right? Speaker 0: Yeah. Or that their menstrual cycles are investigated down the line because that’s concerning. If you think about the science, it shouldn’t interact with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which links hormones and menstrual cycles. It shouldn’t interfere—yet something might be happening. Speaker 1: The HPG axis. Speaker 0: It goes hypothalamus, pituitary, gonads—signal shingles. The HPG axis is tied to fertility problems. Speaker 1: They decide to pack these hormones somehow. But the signaling into the brain is tricky, and the vaccine doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. Speaker 0: If it does come down the line and something bad happens, there’d be substantial criticism given the social pressure and professional consequences. If downstream issues are really serious, the scale would be significant.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the COVID-19 vaccine episode, challenging why the vaccine was pursued as a public health solution and exploring deeper incentives behind the program. - A knowledgeable figure at the stand answered a burning question: did they know the vaccine wouldn’t be effective from the start and could be dangerous? The answer given was that it was “a test of a technology.” The exchange suggests the broader aim was testing an entire program of control previewed in Event 2019. - They ask whether inoculation was necessary on billions, noting it could have been tested on a much smaller population. If shots had been basically empty or inert, the data could have been spun to claim success and end the pandemic, preventing injuries from appearing. The absence of that approach remains a mystery. - The speakers point to high pre-vaccine seroprevalence in 2020, including studies from South Dakota showing 50-60% seroprevalence before vaccine release, implying that a saline shot or no shot could have achieved “indomicity” (immunity) without a vaccine. - They discuss why people might fear vaccines and interpret the broader impact: the public is waking up to something terrible having occurred, as it revealed readiness to lie, potential data quality concerns, and risk to pregnant women and healthy children who might get little justification for risk. - The disease’s lethality is framed as greatest among the very old or very sick; for others, it was less deadly, with natural evolution potentially reducing vulnerability over time. - The mRNA platform was touted as a means to outrun mutations, but the timeline to release was still insufficient to stay ahead of natural change. They note accelerated development was the fastest vaccine in history, from detection to inoculation, reducing the timeline by about a year or two, yet not fast enough. - Political and logistical factors delayed release; there is mention that it would not have appeared under Trump and that Eric Topol argued to delay the rollout. Fauci reportedly sent Moderna back to trials due to insufficient racial diversity in participants. - The discussion questions whether the vaccine qualifies as a normal consumer product, given ongoing subsidies, mandates, indemnifications, wartime-like supports, and propaganda. They wonder if there has been an ongoing two-century revolt by industry against public scrutiny, with public interest repeatedly leading to pushback and rebranding. - A central theme is the sophistication of pharma: the “game of pharma” involves owning an IP-based health claim, crafting supportive research, convincing it is safe and effective, achieving standard-of-care status, securing mandates and government funding, and leveraging ongoing propaganda. They describe pharma as a long-running arms race with deep institutional knowledge, implying that it is far more capable of shaping reality than the public realizes.

Speaker 0 explains that each brand of vaccine is different, including Moderna. Speaker 1 asks if they can see the safety studies for all the vaccines, but Speaker 0 says the information given to patients does not contain that. Speaker 1 asks which vaccine they are giving, and Speaker 0 confirms it is the one they are giving. Speaker 1 questions why the package insert is intentionally blank, and Speaker 0 says the safety studies are inside. Speaker 1 asks how this is informed consent, and Speaker 0 suggests talking to CVS. Speaker 1 expresses concern about not knowing what they are injecting, and Speaker 0 agrees it is a valid point. Speaker 0 admits they cannot answer which studies prove the vaccine is safe and effective.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination but does not provide a clear explanation. Speaker 0 insists on understanding the mechanism and questions why the vaccine is considered safe without addressing the risks. Speaker 2 intervenes, suggesting that Speaker 1 will address the question later. Speaker 1 talks about the benefit-risk ratio and the global recommendation of health authorities. Speaker 0 reiterates the question, to which Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. Speaker 2 confirms this agreement.

Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. The minister explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions why new indemnities were issued recently. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination. Senator Roberts accuses the government of using taxpayers' money and not being transparent about vaccine harm. He criticizes the indemnity agreement with Moderna and raises concerns about experimental mRNA products.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a report stating that serious adverse reactions occur in 1 in 800 vaccinated individuals. Speaker 1 claims to be unaware of the report but mentions routine screening of literature for adverse events. When asked about Moderna's rate of serious adverse events, Speaker 1 cannot provide the information. Speaker 0 expresses frustration and finds it extraordinary that a multinational company cannot provide this data. Speaker 1 offers to provide the information later but states that no safety concerns were observed in their clinical trials. Speaker 0 concludes that the conversation is a waste of time.

Speaker 0 asked about the visibility of the medium to long-term effects of the vaccine in three to five years. Speaker 1 responded that they cannot predict how things will be in three to five years, but mentioned that 92-93% of the population will be vaccinated. Speaker 0 expressed confusion, and Speaker 1 clarified that 92-93% is the current vaccination rate. Speaker 0 raised concerns about potential side effects, but Speaker 1 reassured them that if there are any, the majority of the population would be affected. Speaker 0 remained unconvinced and expressed hesitation about getting vaccinated.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

The speaker asks Pfizer and Moderna to explain how the COVID-19 vaccine causes myocarditis. The response from the doctors is that the exact mechanism is still being studied, but myocarditis is generally an autoimmune response that can occur after COVID-19 or other infections. The speaker questions if other organs could also be affected by the vaccine, but the doctors explain that ongoing surveillance is in place to monitor potential risks. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of initial disclosure of these risks. The doctors emphasize the importance of preventing COVID-19 and state that the reported rate of myocarditis is around 2-3 per 100,000 doses. The speaker argues that if it can happen to the heart, it could happen to other organs. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

Speaker 0: No compensation is available for people with legitimate vaccine injuries, as there is already a system in place through ACC for managing such cases. Speaker 1: However, many vaccine-injured individuals have been denied by ACC and are facing personal financial burdens for their treatment. The requirement of proving the injury is a high bar to meet. Speaker 2: It is not a high bar if a proper examination system is in place. If someone was fine before receiving the vaccine and experienced severe consequences afterward, it is likely caused by the vaccine. We should let an independent commissioner investigate the truth instead of arguing about it.

Speaker 0 asks if people are not afraid of the side effects of the Covid vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that they are more afraid of long-term effects of Covid itself than the vaccine's side effects. They mention that billions of people have been vaccinated with no major side effects reported. Speaker 1 also addresses the concern that women are more affected by vaccine side effects, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. They mention not having any information from the COVAS (the organization responsible for scientific surveillance) or any published studies on this matter.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to explain the process of how the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis. Speaker 1 mentions rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with vaccination. Speaker 0 insists on an explanation of the mechanism, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. Speaker 1 emphasizes that all medicines have benefits and side effects and refers to the benefit-risk ratio. Speaker 0 continues to press for an explanation of the biochemical pathway, but Speaker 1 agrees to provide a response later. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 confirming Speaker 1's agreement to give a further response.

Speaker 0 assures that reported side effects of the vaccine are expected and not concerning. They urge people to report any unusual reactions. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of transparency and unbiased investigation into outbreaks following vaccination. They question the accuracy of recording underlying causes of death related to COVID-19. Speaker 0 dismisses these concerns, stating that spreading doubts about vaccine safety during a pandemic is dangerous and undermines public health. Speaker 1 finds the minister's response concerning and ends the conversation.

Speaker 1 explains their decision not to take the vaccine, citing concerns about its rushed development and safety. They express a desire to set an example for their children and stand by their convictions, even at the cost of losing money. Speaker 0 acknowledges that standing by one's convictions is typically seen as heroic, but Speaker 1 faced criticism instead. Speaker 1 clarifies that they never publicly discouraged vaccination and preferred to keep their decision private. They mention knowing someone who was injured by the vaccine and emphasize the importance of speaking up about such experiences. Speaker 0 agrees that telling the truth often leads to trouble, highlighting a perceived lack of consequences for lying.